|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 11, 2009 18:26:28 GMT -5
Some of my findings... Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story From CMS at FreeRepublic.com: • Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option! • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 11, 2009 18:30:59 GMT -5
Wait times One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[25][26] A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [27] A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[28] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [29] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [30]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [31] According to the Fraser Institute, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[32][33] However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[34] Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to address the wait times problem.[35] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[36] [edit] Medical professional shortage Canada's shortage of medical practitioners causes problems.[37] With 2.1 doctors per thousand population in 2006, Canada is well below the OECD average of 3.1. Canada's 8.8 nurses per thousand was also below the OECD average of 9.7.[38] Suggested solutions include increasing the number of training spaces for doctors in Canada, as well as streamlining the licensing process for foreign doctors already in the country.[39] Doctors in Canada make an average of $202,000 a year (2006, before expenses).[40] Alberta has the highest average salary of around $230,000, while Quebec has the lowest average annual salary at $165,000, creating interprovincial competition for doctors and contributing to local shortages.[40] In 1991, the Ontario Medical Association agreed to become a province-wide closed shop, making the OMA union a monopoly. Critics argue that this measure has restricted the supply of doctors to guarantee its members' incomes.[41] According to a 2007 article from CTV News, the Canadian medical profession is suffering from a brain drain. The article states, "One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practising medicine in the United States...If Canadian-educated doctors who were born in the U.S. are excluded, the number is one in 12." [42] In September 2008, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontarian government agreed to a new four-year contract that will see doctors receive a 12.25% pay raise. The new agreement is expected to cost Ontarians an extra $1 billion. Referring to the agreement, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty said,"One of the things that we've got to do, of course, is ensure that we're competitive ... to attract and keep doctors here in Ontario...".[43] In December 2008, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada reported a critical shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists. The report stated that only 1,370 obstetricians were practicing in Canada and that number is expected to fall by at least one-third within five years. The society is asking the government to increase the number of medical school spots for obstetrics and gynecologists by 30 per cent a year for three years and also recommended rotating placements of doctors into smaller communities to encourage them to take up residence there[44]. [edit] Restrictions on privately funded health care Main article: Canada Health Act The Canada Health Act, which sets the conditions with which provincial/territorial health insurance plans must comply if they wish to receive their full transfer payments from the federal government, does not allow charges to insured persons for insured services (defined as medically necessary care provided in hospitals or by physicians). Most provinces have responded through various prohibitions on such payments. This does not constitute a ban on privately funded care; indeed, about 30% of Canadian health expenditures come from private sources, both insurance and out-of-pocket payments.[45] The Canada Health Act does not address delivery. Private clinics are therefore permitted, albeit subject to provincial/territorial regulations, but they cannot charge above the agreed-upon fee schedule unless they are treating non-insured persons (which may include those eligible under automobile insurance or worker's compensation, in addition to those who are not Canadian residents), or providing non-insured services. This provision has been controversial among those seeking a greater role for private funding. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2009 12:20:00 GMT -5
Some of my findings... Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story From CMS at FreeRepublic.com: • Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option! • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll Marcie, Those aren't actual quotes. Those are conjecturous statements made by a biased website. Where is the actual language in the bill that states those things? It says "page 50", but what you posted is said in page 50 is no where to be found actually "on" page 50. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 13, 2009 1:56:19 GMT -5
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This is the bill... i bet you cant even understand what it says or means. Why would they make the bill out to be so complex and not easily understandable? Do you think the congress understands what they are reading, or are going to read all of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 13, 2009 2:11:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:08:45 GMT -5
Duh? Nobody ever said they were...just that the MAJORITY of Americans are in agreement with The President's Plan. As for the Health bill, there is no "health bill" yet. Just proposals going through Cong & Sen. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:16:24 GMT -5
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX This is the bill... i bet you cant even understand what it says or means. Why would they make the bill out to be so complex and not easily understandable? Do you think the congress understands what they are reading, or are going to read all of it? Marcie, I had to delete that link because it was leading to my computer shutting down (bad link?). Alfie had a good link up directly to the bill. I'll try this one: docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdfIf anybody has any problems with it, let me know. And, to answer you question, when you go to have a procedure or operation, do you want a Medical Assistant to perform open heart surgery on you? Or a Heart Surgeon? Think about it, because things weren't spelled out last time, the Insurance Companies raped the consumer and that's part of why we're in big financial trouble today (it's said that 60% of the Deficit is due to HC issues). Now, things are spelled out so that they can't fleece us anymore. I don't have to be able to read it. My Representatives do. Then, it's up to them to tell me what it means. That's why we pay for lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:16:55 GMT -5
Did you know that the provision on giving counseling on end of life issues was put into the Bill NOT by President Obama, but by a Republican?
Why then is President Obama the one credited that and not The Republican Party?
And, what's wrong with covering the cost of a consultation for the elderly so that they can get good advice on how to handle things in their last days?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 13, 2009 8:49:23 GMT -5
Did you know that the provision on giving counseling on end of life issues was put into the Bill NOT by President Obama, but by a Republican? Why then is President Obama the one credited that and not The Republican Party? And, what's wrong with covering the cost of a consultation for the elderly so that they can get good advice on how to handle things in their last days? Would you mind telling me which republican put the provision in the bill? For all I know it could have been Arlen Specter who was one of the most liberal politicians in the party. Again Obama should have made sure the bill specifically outlawed government paid abortions and euthanasia if he wanted to silence his critics. Why would any pro-life American trust Obama when he has the most extreme pro abortion record in his party? And I don't know why the bill wouldn't be pro euthansia anyway. As Ann Coulter pointed out on the Hannity show Oregon already has laws allowing euthansia. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:57:16 GMT -5
Would you mind telling me which republican put the provision in the bill? For all I know it could have been Arlen Specter who was one of the most liberal politicians in the party. End of Life section in Health Bill was Sponsored by a Republican August 8, 2009, 2:54PM Rep. Charles Boustany of LouisianaThis bill has bipartisan support (the main cosponsor is a Republican doctor) as well as support from a diverse coalition like AARP, the American College of Physicians, and Catholic health systems.
Republicans are trying to scare seniors about this issue -- despite the fact that end-of-life consultations have been embodied in federal law since 1990, and supported by both Republicans and Democrats for years.tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/coonsey/2009/08/end-of-life-section-in-health.php?ref=recdcMaybe he doesn't want to silence his critics? Maybe he wants to keep them talking so that people could see how loony they really are, inventing lies about those things being "in" the bill when they never were. He's smart. He's manipulating the Radical Right Wing Extremists by not engaging them and they are talking more and more and more and more and as the truth comes out, they are being exposed as the kooks that they are. How do you think he won the election? Politics is chess...not checkers!  When it comes to abortion, they should trust him. He tells the truth. He's Pro-Choice. They know where he stands. ;D The bill does not address euthansia. How can it be "pro" something that isn't even mentioned in the bill? If you can find it, please...point it out to us.  |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 13, 2009 10:33:27 GMT -5
Boustany Votes Against Democrats' Health Overhaul in Committee
Jul 17 2009
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Charles W. Boustany, Jr., R-Southwest Louisiana, today voted against the House Democrats’ massive health care overhaul during a mark-up of the bill in the House Ways and Means Committee.
“This 1,000-plus page bill became public less than 24 hours ago, and the American people deserve a thorough review,” Boustany said. “As a doctor, I saw firsthand the problems we have in health care, and I believe we can lower the cost of health care to make it more affordable for millions of Americans. This bill fails to do that. Democratic leadership in Washington wrote this bill quickly, without concern for the long-term costs for patients, doctors or taxpayers.”
According to a news report, the House Democrats’ health care overhaul will cost more than $1 trillion over ten years and be paid for with a $500 billion cut to Medicare and substantial increases in payroll taxes. The bill could also raise premiums in the Medicare Part-D program, which provides drug coverage for millions of seniors, by more than 50 percent per month.
Boustany, a former cardiothoracic surgeon, supports providing patients and doctors with more information and more choices about health insurance and services. By increasing choices and competition and making insurance companies more accountable to patients, the resulting lower costs will allow more families to develop a quality doctor-patient relationship.
The bill passed with a vote of 23-18 in the early hours of Friday morning. It will now be considered by the full House later this month
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 10:40:02 GMT -5
Boustany Votes Against Democrats' Health Overhaul in Committee Jul 17 2009 Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Charles W. Boustany, Jr., R-Southwest Louisiana, today voted against the House Democrats’ massive health care overhaul during a mark-up of the bill in the House Ways and Means Committee.
LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 13, 2009 10:58:03 GMT -5
Yep!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 11:10:22 GMT -5
So what does that tell you about all the manufactured anger directed at The President on the issue of end of life consultation reimbursements?
LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 26, 2009 11:43:12 GMT -5
simply said!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 28, 2009 11:16:24 GMT -5
Question: What is the Republican Health Care Plan? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 29, 2009 2:58:28 GMT -5
Well, from what i understand is that they want to keep the health care the way it is, except insure the few that dont have it. Now how they plan to do that, is beyond me, but i dont think the healthcare system should be totally run by the government. As you can see, and you failed to comment on...is that the president is not fully telling the truth about "what" is in the bill. Lets puts the cards on the table and not try to be sneeky about what we are voting for..what do ya say? His approval rate is dropping not going up....that should tell you something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Sept 3, 2009 5:42:10 GMT -5
Well, from what i understand is that they want to keep the health care the way it is, except insure the few that dont have it. Here's what I don't get Marcie...if supposedly, over 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance, why do they want to reform it? Cost + abuse of the big insurance companies whom the Republicans have (as usual) run to protect. So, should we get rid of Medicaid/Medicare? And, how can Americans be happy with them since their 100% run by the government? See, the very same system(s) that Americans are supposedly 80% happy with are run by who? The United States Government. So, how can they be happy with Government run health care, but opposed to Government run health care at the same time? That just doesn't make sense to me. Well, I "can't" see that because that's simply not true. Show me where he is lieing. Point out the lies and show me in the bill where they are lies (I've heard those opposed to the President complain about what he wants to do, but no one has put up any evidence). You mean, like lieing about "death panels" and stuff like that? The only ones being sneak are those who are protecting Big Insurance Company Business/Corporations (The Republicans). Notice how they run to defend Big Corporations (Healthcare, Wall Street, Banking, etc...), but when it came time to defend the working man (Unions, Automakers, etc...), they attack them. They are simply Big Business Elitists who defend the rich and leave the working class to suffer. Yeah, it tells me that he is just like every other President who's ever won an election...they start out strong when first elected, but as they begin to impliment the plans that they were elected to put into action, his opponents run back to opposing him. The fact is, the majority of Americans elected him and they still support him. You cannot expect those who voted against him to support him and then say that that somehow proves that he's not liked...duh? LOL! They never liked him! LOL! How can he lose the support of a group that voted against him in the first place? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Sept 6, 2009 15:45:55 GMT -5
EWTN says "end of life counseling" means euthansia.
The health bill will also allow abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Sept 6, 2009 16:37:00 GMT -5
EWTN says "end of life counseling" means euthansia. The health bill will also allow abortions. A) EWTN has it's "nutjobs" too (namely Mitch Pacwa among others). It is a lie to say that end of life counseling means euthenasia. End of life counseling (will preparation, property disbursment, etc...) has absolutely nothing to do with suicide. B) Abortion is already allowed, remember? It's already legal in this country. The Health Billl can't make it any more legal than what it is. |
|
